Skip to main content
7:00 pm
together, wrote it, and when i included to myself what i had to write, i couldn't write for an hour because i was sick. one thing to say about the friends on the right too, when it did publish it, the comments on national view op line basically said that i should be read out of the conservative movement. one accused me of peddling fear porn. [laughter] i had a more favorable reaction from the viewers on the daily cause than on national review online. [laughter] i think what that -- [laughter] yeah. >> as many obscene comments as i did? >> no. from -- >> left commentators, a lot -- >> no, no, look, there is hyperpartisanship on the left and right. what i got was not an obscene comment, but they said i sounded
7:01 pm
reasonable, how could i work for the hacks at aei and the bozos at nro? okay? already what we need to do generally in the discussions is with each other is to recognize everybody in the discussion is an american. everyone in the discussion is actually not a hack or a bozo or tyrant in the making, but something trying to organize and think their way through these problems that are very difficult and very complex. somebody said they were going to be a pundit and promised that barack obama's going to win 59% of the vote in 49 states. that person is not in the realm of reality, but that's not where anybody who is serious was, and this was the hardest election in our lifetime, the hardest election since nixon in 68 to call. >> i just can't resist saying i put michael in a different
7:02 pm
category than dick morris, but -- [laughter] that aside, on the supreme court, we don't know what vacancies there will be. we have several justices in their 70s. you know, in this world today, being in your 70s, thank goodness, does not mean that you're approaching the end of your life. we also know that we've had justices with health problems. we know we have justices who smoke too much and may be have other vices that could have an impact, but, you know, tables don't help us very much. there's a good chance that in the next four years, there's one, two, or three vacancies. some depends on when they emerge. if you have a 55-45 democratic senate, and there's a vacancy, barack obama has a little more leeway to pick somebody with a stronger ideological edge than if it's it a 51-49 senate or one
7:03 pm
that goes the other way. i think your much more likely in any event to get somebody who would be somewhere in the broad center of legal discourse, and there are a lot of operations -- options out there. in many ways, more interesting, is the impact that we'll see now with obama having four years, and maybe a little bit more of an understanding curious that he didn't have it as a constitutional law professor, of the importance of putting forward nominees for appeals courts and district courts. he was really slow in moving to that through his first couple of years, and there's a lot of vacancies there. now he's got opportunities to fill the vacancies, and the controversy over the filibuster may end up being more, yet again, in the replay of the bush years, over jew dish -- jew dishble no , --
7:04 pm
judicial nominations. >> i think obama neutralized romney on the economy this year. if it goes on longer, it's hard to know. in the exit polls, 53% of the voters blame george bush for current economic problems, and 38% barack obama. you see how he neutralized that. >> a comment on that. if you look at the most recent analysis of those just off the charts sue pert in straightforward analysis, you know, looking at this downturn, in the context of other downturns triggered by financial crisis and debt problems which is different from a typical recession, weaver come -- we've come out of that better than most others, and better than other countries who experienced it in a global way, and if you look at the forecast made by moody analytics and others, basically, it was regardless of who is the president, we'll see 12 million
7:05 pm
jobs created over the next four years. now, they may be right, and they may be wrong, and their prognostications on economic issues are nowhere belter than ours have been on political issues, and lots of things can emerge, including war, a -- other kinds of economic issues, trade wars, whatever it may be, but there's a pretty good chance that we're going to start to see some significant recovery, and there's signs out there, and one part is another area where i think the obama policies falter ed, not moving rapidly on the housing market. people, ewe know, american's savings are wrapped up in their homes. there's not consumption or confidence if you're savings has not just taken a hit, but will not come back. as you see home prices rise and the market shift, that will probably bring itself a significant additional level of consumer confidence, and that could feed on some level of
7:06 pm
growth. to be realistic, we're not going to get levels of growth, 4% or 5% in the next couple of years that emerge, if you've got recovery from a typical recession. it's going to take longer than that, and it's probably going to be at a lower level. >> there's one question here, and then ben, you can have the last word. this question. >> lynn with the cap stand council for policy and ethics. i was wondering with the deep divisions within the nation that we've seen, the near split that's there, the division between those people who are religious, families, families that are made up without two-parent families, the deep divisions there, the culture wars spoken on so frequently, what about a healing orup mying of the culture as you have spoken about, mr. olsen, with people such as the inincendiary
7:07 pm
returning, and then mr. barone, as y'all are constantly looking at cultural effects and efforts, what happens within our national culture? will it be a time of heal r -- healing or further division? >> okay. to the front. >> hi. i walked in just after he was talking about -- request you speak -- >> can you speak up, ben? >> what? >> can you speak up? >> yeah. i walked in as you finished your remarks, and i wonders where they were. [inaudible]
7:08 pm
app institutional diamond. >> could you repeat that, ben? >> what about norm. >> norm is an institutional diamond in the rough. [laughter] he used to say that the closeness of theit' -- it was hf and half, 51-49, something like that, that in a winner take all situation, winner in the take all situation could be tiltedly the tinyist group of voters. [inaudible][3"
7:09 pm
who is deciding the votes of left handed lit wanians. that was his sort of -- [inaudible] community that god gave arabs the oil and jews the electoral college. [laughter] they were cluttered in swing states in florida >> -- >> norm, you're going to respond to the diamond in the rough. >> right, so it protects small minorities because it was protects them, and finally, the idea that who is going to be the leader of this country will be a
7:10 pm
tie and that so many tens of millions of people are disenfranchised because they live in a blue state or a red state. my thought was, and i think it's just controversial that if you awarded by federal statute or institution, what the order would be, one electoral vote to the winner of the popular vote, that would eliminate a tie, and it would make everybody feel that that -- if they wanted to feel that way, that makes everyone feel they were part of the process, even if they live in a 70/30 swing state, red or blue, well, i went in and vote. >> yeah. have you thought about the issues? >> yeah. you know, a couple points ben made. first is it's a rare election that is not decided in some fashion at the margins. yet, it does result in an
7:11 pm
electoral college bonus. ronald reagan, remember, got 51% of the votes in a three-way race winning enormous surplus of electoral votes. democrats tried to make the case when the republicans swept all the senate seats that a shift of 50,000 votes would have given democrats back, like, seven senate seats, and, you know, so what? base basically, there's a tie that moves in one direction, and that tilts things in one particular way. that's always going to be the case, and that's the case the people who will try to find a rationale why they didn't lose or why it doesn't mean so much. the electoral college has really serious challenges now. we can thank god at one level we didn't end up with another 2000 which we could have had where you have the winner of the popular vote lose the electoral college. it would have been flipped, and i will say i was, at one level,
7:12 pm
deliciously awaiting the "wall street journal" editorials that after the 2000 election that said, oh, come on, grow up, these are the rules, this is how it happens saying, go to the barricades! [laughter] it would be flippedded other way around, but it's the kind of crisis that's now in the making, and it is a problem as ben had said, that we have 41 states where basically the outcome is determined. the good news for people in the 41 states is you don't have to sit back like a goose force fed and have commercials that just are the deluge upon you. i don't know if you saw the video of 22 consecutive biofilled commercials in ohio somebody put tailgate. we have to deal with it, and there's a bonus, and preserve some of the features of the electoral college that we don't need to talk about in detail, but that we have long supported and view as valuable, and just
7:13 pm
one other point which is keep in mind if you talk about the national popular vote and how wonderful that would be and avoid the nightmares, imagine an election like 1960, popular vote, nationwide is divided by one tenth of 1%. you don't impound the ballot boxes in florida, but across the nation. you have an army of lawyers going to florida. there's regimen after regimen, maybe the biggest jobs program in the history of the country going everywhere taking months to decide it's not so greatings and just one comment. you know, one. great problems is the coursenning of culture generally reflected in the allen wests and others, and you got them across the board, and it is, we live in a culture where lying brings no sense of shame or cost. you get caught in a lie, and the
7:14 pm
lesson learned these days is you double down on it and you get a cable television show or be a political superstar. it is something we really have to deal with, i think, in a larger level, and i actually think what henry has been talking about, we need a vibrant conservative republican party, two parties that go at each other, but also recognize, the fact is most of the issues, there's an enormous amount of commonground, not black and white questions, but it needs to be done at a different level and done with a different set of attitude, and i think he has, and there are others, steve hayward here for a long time wrote a wonderfully interesting piece on the future of the conservative movement. we're not talking about noarn -- north eastern liberals who have no home at this point. i don't know what will happen, we're talking about card carrying conservatives who understand that if we keep going down this path, tribalism could turn this into a country that
7:15 pm
makes all those nice words about how we're not red states and blue states, but the united states into where red states and blue states going to the ma matresses. >> you know, one way to avoid the tie in the electoral college is for congress to set the sides of the house in representatives at an even number. there could be a tie for speaker of the house so because that would give us the -- >> yeah. >> you know, that would give us a non-tie. on the values question, you know, we have -- i think that sometimes we forget that the united states, during most history was a diverse country from the colonial times. i think those of us who grew up with or remember the sort of universal popular cultures of the radio entertainment programs, the movies of the 1930s and 40s, television in the 50s and early 1960s, there was a need ya set up with a huge --
7:16 pm
media set up with a huge advantage of a popular culture that appealed to everybody, and you had this period in which we had that very strong universalñi popular culture in some cases. we don't live in that country anymore. we have 133 cable channels. we lost the language of the universal culture. we have differing values like we had in the past. the founders established a federal government with limited powers with a lot of room for states, localities, and voluntary associations to do much of society's work. they specifically made the federal government knew rail on religion. states could have an established church if they wanted to or they didn't have to have one. we certainly would not have one nationally. we were going to just leave religion, federal government was going to be neutral on that, and that, you know, that mostly worked, although there were difficulties. we had the civil war because you got a federal government issue, slavery in the territories, the
7:17 pm
territories were -- congress was given specific power to regulate the territories so you couldn't avoid that issue. we had civil war. one of the problems with big government in my judgment, and i think it is a bigger government, is that when you have something like obamacare, that becomes a federal issue whether or not you're insurance policy should cover $9 needed to pay for contraceptives at wal-mart. that's less than the price of two pumpkin lattes at starbucks. it was an issue with a speaker in the prime tine tv hour at the democratic national con sense speaking on the issue, and a lot of people have strong moral beliefs or personal religious beliefs on both side of the issues. beliefs that are not crazy,
7:18 pm
irrational, but just happen to be different. it's a national issue where the founders' ideas that things like this would be handled in different ways so people could reach different resolutions nationally, and so i think, you know, the supreme court made abortion a national issue in 1973 #, people have strong views on both sides of the issue. in beliefs that are important in their lives. we can want expect those expelled from poll sicks when government makes those decisions. >> henry, you get the lest word. >> people talk about bipartisanship or unity. i think there's types of false unity that we should talk about. one is the false unity where we pretend that moral values are things laid at the political doors. i think my michael was elegant why it can't be. the other unity is when a party says to the other that unity is on my term, and when i hear a
7:19 pm
lot of times people on the right, i get the impression that unity will be fine as long as we just talk about the shade of red from rose to ruby, and on the left, the last few days, the underlying aassumption is we won the election, and the unity will be devading the shade of blue to accept from periwinkles, and i think what americans want is for us to look at america as a marriage, and the democrats and the republicans are two spouses, and the country is the family, and what you learn when you're in a marriage is that you have to authentically listen to the other spouse. you have to understand what the other spouse's view appointment is, even if you disagree with it, and if you care more about the family than you do about yourself, then you make accommodations to authentically respond to the other person's deepest desires and aspirations, even if it could discomfort you
7:20 pm
or you disagree with it. we will have a real bipartisanship when we have red and blue come together to debate about the shades of purple understanding that they won't et everything they want. until, and unless that can happen, we will only be talking about false unity, which means that civility will continue to decrease and political war will continue to happen. [applause] >> i'd like to thank wonderful panelists and colleagues here at aei, and thank you, all, for coming, and we'll see you all in two years. i want my fiction intensely
7:21 pm
journalistic because unless you get out and look at what's going on, these days, you influence what is influencing yourself and everybody else. >> tom wolf is live sunday for this year's opening night at miami's book fair international discussing "back to blood," and its take from the city of miami answering questions from the miami audience sunday on booktv on c-span2. >> okay, i need help here. what? >> try to get up without anybody knowing? >> i tried to get him up, he rolled himself out. >> the morphine. >> he was issued the bottle today with 20 in it, and ten are missing. he's taken ten tablets. >> oh, my god.
7:22 pm
>> thad ridiculous. >> that's why he's high right now. >> at some point, he could stop breathing if he took too much narcotickings. >> we'll do cbs on a party. >> where is he today? >> we end up following him after the plane ride for many months, as i said, and he ended up entering nims into an innovative program at walter reid using acupuncture, using meditation, using other techniques to wean him off all the drugs he was on, and through this program, he was actually able to walk out of walter reid on his own two feet. i commend the military for two things. one, for allowing us to tell this story, both the good and the bad, but for recognizing this problem, by recognizing that there is a this problem of over medication, and that they are looking for outside the box
7:23 pm
ideas on how to fix it. i mean, that's sort of the whole thesis of the film really. the metaphor of the et cape fire is the status quo is not working, and we have to look for outside the box ideas. >> more with the producer and directer of "escape fire" cubed -- sunday night at 8 or c-span's "q&a." >> the national journal hosted their own post-election analysis wednesday. during this portion there that
7:24 pm
event, pollsters from both parties examined the role demographics played in the presidential re-election. this is just over a half hour. >> if you wanted to set a predicate for discussing how changing demography changes measuring and american politics, you couldn't have done better than last night which we will look back on as not just a political, but a cultural and social milestone, a moment where the country looked in the mirror and said we are a different place than we used to be. we have a terrific panel to think about implications of this for the two parties for our economy, and for the society itself, but i want to start with three numbers which seem to incaps late the election, and, really three simple numbers, 80, 39, 28. barack obama won 80% of the combined vote of minority voters who constituted 28% of the electorat, allowing him to win a national majority with a
7:25 pm
comfortable electoral college majority winning just 39% of whites, and, in fact, mitt romney in losing equaled the best performance ever in the history of a polling by a republican challenger among white voters, and will lose at least 300-something electoral college votes so we're going to delve into this from every possible angle, but let me start, stan, with you, and then matt and whit. just talk about your thoughts about the implications of these results, both ends, for each party, both the republican weakness with minority voters, what that meant for them, and the fact that an indumb benltd democrat struggled, and could not get to 40%. >> okay. i appreciate starting there because i spent a mar seniority of the time there, and i thank national journal and for participating, but i started work in poll -- politics with reagan democrats and the role of race in weighing down the democratic party and the issues to address and it may
7:26 pm
well be some of the issues we address, welfare reform, if i listed what were the things that the democratic -- that bill clinton did that made it possible for the democratic party to be a party that's won the most votes in every presidential election since 1990, that, i think the starting point, and we have to ask whit and others, or speculate on what it is the republican party would need to do to begin to address that. i don't want to leave it there because it's not a big enough picture on what happened on the demographic and cultural side. it's related, i think, because i think the problem is bigger if it's not just latinos and african-americans because we deal with 28% of the electorat, if it turns out patterns continued from 2006 and 2008, and so what that does is to say
7:27 pm
that is to no longer view this rising trend, you know, and climate change and say, you know, there's a difference of opinion. there's real consequences, and i assume accountability over the fact you get polls wrong and the election wrong, you lose when you don't get it right so that's a piece of it, you know, that's very important. the other pieces are unmarried women. okay? unmarried women were 23% of the electorat. this is a amongst the other trends, majority ofs of americans live in unmarried households, unmarried women voted 70% for president obama. how the women's vote held up from 2008, look at unmarried women, that's where it held up. they have a world view that's on the economic side and cultural side that, you know, conflicts with what was offered by romney and the republican party, and then you bring in young voters,
7:28 pm
who, one in five voters, and who in, many ways, defined this culturally which obama did surprisingly well getting amazingly high turnout, and then you have the educated women side, all of which are growth, you know, segments, and they are a majority of the electorat. it's not just the 28%, let's figure out that problem, but they are interrelated, there's a cultural side, a value side to this, and the difficulty of addressing this has to do with a comfort level with diversity, with immigration, a certain view of the world, how you deal with the role of women, family, view of faith in its role in society, and there's a whole range of things that are part of the package, you know, and gay marriage initiatives, passing in this election, and post-election poll, gay marriage is more positive. there's a set of issues there. >> now what lessons from each party from what we saw last
7:29 pm
night? smit stan hit on a number of important things there, and, obviously, the demographics are changes. the biggest take away, the headline is 28% minorities. there was a lot of discussion over the polls, and what percent did you have minorities in your sample, and, you know, i think that almost everyone missed that. there were some late polls that were picking up that higher enthusiasm and turnout rates monk blacks, latinos, and asians. 28% is a headline that's trending, okay? that will 31% proablg in 2016, and then it's 34. we have to remember that whatever share the republicans need to be successful continue to go up or that 39% or 61% of whites -- either it's scarier with racial divides or republicans sit up and say how
7:30 pm
can we cut into the latino, the african-american votes and the asian-american votes? .. that serve to decrease what he could've done with minority voters but it's not clear what's going to happen to the democratic party when obama is gone? will there be a candidate that can step in and continue that
7:31 pm
enthusiasm for this record high turnout rates or will there be slippage there if you have a john kerry type of candidate that didn't perform well. >> you have all your kind of used and worried about the imprecations of the republican party of an election, almost exactly like what we ended up seeing where the nominee was able to generate a landslide margin among whites but previously had produced an electoral landslide, ronald reagan in 80 and bush in 88 and eisenhower and comparable margins among whites. what are the implications for the party of romney losing while reaching that level? >> ron, the demographics that we have all discussed have been obvious for a long time. the proportion of whites in the national electorate over the last four presidential campaigns has gone 81, 77, 74, 72.
7:32 pm
this is not a secret. sometimes the obvious does not become apparent until we have an election like this but now the obvious is readily apparent to anyone particularly any republicans who don't have their heads on. mitt romney did extremely well among whites as you said. he won whites by a landslide yet he still lost the election. we not only lost hispanics by a larger proportion than john mccain, 71-27. we lost agents by 73% to 27%. bob dole won, a lot of people don't remember that but we are in a position now where we have got to, through differences in policies, differences in tone and differences and candidates,
7:33 pm
reach out in a way that we have never reached out before we will not be successful in the national party. >> is it possible if significantly improved up public performance with minority of voters without changing the party on immigration? >> no, it's not. it's not the most important issue among hispanics. the economy is the most important issue among hispanics but positions on immigration and more importantly toned on immigration sends a tremendous message to hispanics. to borrow a phrase from my friend todd harris, harsh tones about hispanics are like smoke. you know it's going to kill you but you do it anyway. the time is come for republicans to slap a patch on, break the habit or we are going to die. >> , do you agree, are
7:34 pm
republicans looking for hispanic voters and saying okay a lot of social conservatives they are less pro-government than african-americans or in the middle on that front and can any of those opening -- be thwarted while the party is where it is on immigration? >> that would explain it exactly right. there are other issues that matter but this is a litmus test. this is a threshold issue because until you are are talking about our community and talking about our families, and as long as the republicans maintain voices within the party, it's the worst when it's the nominee that when you have joe ara pio and russell pierce, herman cain's comments about the electric fence, state legislator in kansas who said we should shoot immigrants from a helicopter like they do pigs. these comments, there are lists of these and it's hard to
7:35 pm
control state legislatures but these comments get picked up and reported like wildfire in the hispanic press and the spanish media. that rhetoric in that town i think makes it impossible to listen to your policies on these other issues and just changing, for example marco rubio talked about that, just changing the tone will go a long way. >> the effort to disenfranchise minority and low-income voters, i can imagine a more dysfunctional turnout the vote effort for the democratic party but there is going to be a generational message. african-americans had when they went through the civil rights movement the republican party received -- perceives is not pointing these voters to have the right to vote. that is the perception. they need to deal with immigration step by -- back from the idea that we can't win them over so therefore let's make it impossible them to vote.
7:36 pm
>> and want to come back to the challenges of democrats and let me stick with republicans for a minute. saying that you now among the thinkers of the party the view that the gop has to move on immigration and a more accommodating way is pretty widespread. on the other hand, today you are, the gop is winning a preponderance margin among proportion to the white electorate and they are most uneasy about the demographic change that is underway. over 60% of white seniors come over 60% of blue-collar workers -- white-collar workers voted for romney yesterday. is it possible to move toward a position on immigration that would be more attractive to the hispanic voters without alienating the voters that are already baron who dominate the primaries? >> yes, possible. takes a very gifted leader to do it and it's going to take a republican who is without question a conservative but who has a different tone on
7:37 pm
immigration and hispanic issues. i'm talking about somebody like marco rubio or someone like jeff bush. leaders like that can persuade republicans as well as all americans that we have to take a different tone and a different approach. yes, it's possible. it's not easy but it's possible with the right leader. >> it has stood as an understanding in the way the two parties of all. the modern democratic coalition coalition -- which would imply that the republicans, and the republican coalition are many of the voters who are not comfortable and in fact if you look at our last poll we asked are the growing number of newcomers a good thing filling the tradition with new ideas or is the bad thing into much change? half of them said it was good and a half as there was bad 3-1 for romney so given where republicans are not getting
7:38 pm
their votes how much leeway do you think the party leaders have in fact to realign the position on these things? >> while the leaders are critical to this and let's put this out for president clinton. at the end of his presidency, he made a declaration that america is a diverse multicultural country and it is a virtue. we are competitive country. our american advantage in the world is that we are more open and more diverse and we are growing from the younger ages up and that it makes a stronger country. i work across europe. you say you're multicultural country anywhere in europe you are pounced. you could not utter the word multicultural. cameron attacks labor for being multicultural. with the did was bring over as you indicated not just the minority groups themselves but a broader set, more cosmopolitan,
7:39 pm
more suburban that are comfortable with that world. it's not the only issue they are voting on but it's a worldview that they have. going to clinton, going to your point we made a decision, we knew welfare reform was the issue and that was the one that changed people who looked at the democratic party. we ran welfare in the primaries in georgia on purpose so that no one could say it got to the general election and the reason they were running, well formed reformats appealing to the white vote. and we had a racist vote. we proved we could win african-americans running on welfare reform in the primary against an african-american candidate. >> the implication of that today well with the parallel before a republican? stand? >> you need a leader primary and though i think probably as early
7:40 pm
as possible to get it off the table. >> so my friend jonathan martin had a publication which shall not be named, floated that scenario yesterday where he said looking at these questions, he said quoted a republican strategist saying any potential 2016 nominee will be intimidated from joining a comprehensive immigration solutions because the likelihood at least one or two candidates will go into iowa and new hampshire in 2016 and run on repealing obama's amnesty in the same way they ran on repealing health care and again in a republican primary you have the catch-22 that the future never gets a boat in the room. the existing coalition 93% of voters as best we could tell were white and over 60% were over 50. generally speaking groups that are uneasy with a lot of what is happening demographically. a matt, how much leeway do you think republicans have if you're a republican leader at this point how much rest with their
7:41 pm
ian moving out in front in saying we have to reconsider this? >> i don't think there's a lot of risk frankly. in the primary this ear ration reform did not rate in undocumented immigrants did not rate is a major issue for republican primary voters. i was baffled by why these candidates were trying to move further and further to the right on immigration. there were some rumblings about that in a tea party wave and 2010 but in 2012 look at every exit poll, 3% of voters said immigration and most of those voters who are scared of immigrants, they are going to vote republican anyway and settled any candidate, candidate like jeb bush or the candidates can get through the primary. they just have to settle their advisor down and say listen we are going to run this type of campaign and i think that candidate can be successful. >> let's move beyond that because as i said before
7:42 pm
hispanic voters are less than the activist camp than african-american but certainly there's a lot of support for health care reform and for example the exit poll and i don't know these numbers are published by what to do about health care reform? leave it, expanded, repeal it, some or all. among whites 60% say repeal it and 60% of hispanics say leavitt or expanded and 60% of african-americans say leavitt or expanded. when you look at these core issues lifting more people into the middle class, how to do it, education and health care training and those kinds of issues, which party do you think is more in tune with where hispanics are and what are the challenges the twin faces? >> i think that's a good point because immigration is by far not the dominant issue and it's not the only issue on the agenda with latino voters. as we said before to an issue that creates hostile rhetoric so it's an issue that can be evaluated on but on health care
7:43 pm
and overwhelming maturities supported the health care bill and had the have the highest rates of uninsured. on issues of what to do about balancing the deficit overwhelming majorities of latinos say increasing taxes on the wealthy should be part of that solution not cuts only. there other issues on the economy. when we pulled our weekly tracking poll 70 to 20% said they trusted the democrats economic policies on the economy compared to republicans so there are other issues. what i want to say is 51% of latinos are not going to report the republican. their goal needs to be they had that 40% level that w was able to do in that will make them competitive and they need to create a goal for. they cannot concede 97% of the black vote. start with 12, start with 17 but they need to make inroads and it's unrealistic to you to say let's not go after hispanics
7:44 pm
because if they get into those 38 to 40% ranges they can be competitive. >> then it at that point you are talking about the democratic problem with whites. so let me ask you, imagine a world where you have the eraser end in 2013 there is a big deal and comprehensive immigration reform is taken off the table. how far does that get you with this emerging electric, spandex asians is set for and what else does the party have to do to get back to the numbers? >> well it's a step in the right does the -- direction. you have to have a new mindset that basically says we welcome anyone who shares our values and shares our desire for low taxes high economic growth, good jobs and a strong america. we welcome anybody no matter what you look like. go back and listen to some of ronald reagan's rhetoric. he talked about his chinese city on a hill, if it had to have
7:45 pm
walls the walls had gates and the gates were open to all those with a the heart of the will. you haven't heard a lot of rhetoric like that from republicans lately. that was ronald reagan. these are the guys who built the majority and if we can get back to the ronald reagan and talledega that we welcome all, regardless of what you look like, who share our values we will get back and we will get back quickly. george bush had 44% of the latino vote. we are not that far away from being right at the level you are talking about being very competitive with the right leaders but we have got to have the right leaders and we have got to have the right tone. >> on the flipside democrats to luring for this coalition certainly in the first two years they blinked on for fear of resistance among legislators who are heavily the color white
7:46 pm
districts but also delivering economic advance. the reality is obama, the number among hispanics went up even though unemployment has been in double digits. at some point as the party have to does liver tangible uplift and include this coalition to hold it together? >> the question is important but it doesn't need to deliver for this coalition. needs to deliver for america because all the things you talk about including where they are with white voters are a function of the number one issue which is the economy and how we will grow the economy and what's going to happen to the middle-class. you had the good fortune to run this time against a republican party and republican candidate that was out of touch with ordinary voters and that was hostile on immigration and the right to vote and denying science and denying whatever but we were running in that environment but the voters
7:47 pm
wanted them to address the short and long-term problems with the economy which means how to raise incomes in what is the future the middle-class and put that issue on the table. with a the second term would be about. that is what this coalition is looking for but that is what those white voters are looking for. it is not tenable that your worldview is mainly focused on leaving the obligations of the commitment you made. you should recruit romney and mccain as the two last presidential candidates in the republican party and it won't be on the ballot in next time to negotiate along with the chamber of commerce to negotiate a deal on immigration reform from the beginning. if i were them i would get it out of the way and then you'll open up the economics and have a much greater challenge because on that, the voters are less sure the president knows how he is going to raise incomes and create jobs and that is i think the first thing he has to do.
7:48 pm
>> we have a comments from the audience. go ahead. >> let's not underestimate the challenge the president faces. the election yesterday was 50/48 and the president managed to get less than 40% support from the largest ethnic group. he leads a very divided country and he helps make the divide by the way he ran the campaign. it's incumbent on this president to reach out to show a willingness to expand his coalition to be flexible with some of his policy options in order to overcome this divide, and only he can do it. no one else other than this president to get us beyond this incredibly divided country. >> worth noting, as of right now his margin of victory is the smallest ever for a successfully reelected president as a share of the popular vote.
7:49 pm
at the least he is the first president since andrew jackson and 32 to be reelected with a smaller share of the popular vote than the first time. let's bring in the audience, there in the back. >> concerned scientist. thanks for this panel. i want to pay that off as something you are saying about science-based reality and we saw the october surprise in this campaign was the super storm sandy not only suspending the campaign immediate coverage for generating the endorsement -- bloomberg endorsement and on the other hand the republican party over the years, we have seen looking over the right shoulder and tear in tehran the primaries like bob english or my castle or dick lugar and a few of knowledge climate is real work across the aisle but this may not have registered yet. yesterday for the five members of congress republicans targeted went down in defeat. one of them dan benishek is still in the bubble and may or
7:50 pm
may not carry through but four out of five went down because they were targeted for taking taking the antiscience position. i'm wondering to questions 14 whit. and for stan is there an opening for the president -- my present to go more locally on climate than he did the first time? >> is sandy a turning point in this discussion are not? >> the whole discussion of climate change has become so polarized that i think if we can address some of our economic challenges and if we can address some of our immigration challenges, there are some things that are whole lot higher on the priority list than trying to overcome the divide on that. eventually, the progress of science will be persuasive to more and more people but right
7:51 pm
now what it has become so divisive that i wouldn't look for any sort of immediate -- on that particular issue. >> this could be an event like the santa barbara oil spill and the galvanizing changing the debate in an important way or is it just to -- >> i think there is more opportunity there but i do think whit's comments reflect something about the republican party that goes back to immigration, something about the dynamics of the republican party in the primaries that romney thought he could survive by positioning to the right in what ultimately when being as far right as possible on immigration and that was almost the first issue that he chose not to move to the center on and did not move on in the debate when he moved to the center on other issues. he felt he could not do. this may still be true on
7:52 pm
climate change. i wonder, given christie's position in this and cuomo's not on the question of the science but what is causing it but managing the consequence of warming, maybe we can find a basis and it may be under the rubric of energy. there is a lot of what obama wants to do on energy, trust climate change in the process and so it may be in a more pragmatic in the context of this crisis, that there will be movement. could be movement. >> this question is for a map. matt, as we see the latino population getting bigger, more affluent, more politically involved and also the courage role -- cultural base that they are normally family, open the
7:53 pm
gates up for everyone as long as they'll have an equal opportunity. if there is a legitimate latino candidate in the future, the reciprocal, will they be able to coalesce with the african-american vote just as president obama has taken the coalition of latinos and african-americans, would a hispanic be able to do the same thing? >> i think so. i think that there is a lot of similarities. if you look at a lot of the congressional candidates that are out there and now as we now represent districts that are both black and latino, they are doing that our reach and finding there are some similarities in these communities. we do sometimes see disagreements and primaries where and latinos sometimes support the candidate from their own primary but in the generals there is usually overwhelming support and i think we are starting to see more latino
7:54 pm
candidates emerging and to do that they know they need to build good strong relationships with the african-american community. i think there are those types of candidates on the horizon. i will say one quick thing on the republican side. one of the republicans that did the best yesterday was ted cruz. he didn't win the latino vote buddy got 35% and that's a lot better than that romney did with latino votes and part of that is in 2010 susanna martinez got 30% and that was the magic number that josé fuentes mentioned in part of it is they're they are making a more authentic effort so i think it's very important to talk about the candidates. >> before we go to the audience, real quick just yes or no, what would be your bet on the odds of a latino candidate on either party's ticket in 2016? >> good for. >> for both? >> from a republican side. >> i think republican side is
7:55 pm
probably better. >> do we have one more over there somewhere? over there, in the back. >> it is a typical for candidates to pivot toward the center after their respective primaries. can you distinguish a difference between the beginning and the creativity that mitt romney used in terms of i didn't say was going to raise your taxes and i didn't say let detroit go bankrupt and i didn't say i am pro-abortion. is that you need to this particular campaign or do you see candidates in the future being that creative? >> you could answer that, stan.
7:56 pm
[laughter] >> i will pass on that. i will way. >> i will say, the severity of it was some of these issues in terms of our conversation i'm struck that on the immigration thing how little of that occurred and the second debate where he used the words magnet and amnesty. i think you said he kind of doubled down after kind of softening earlier in the fall and so forth. when he got to that debate he kind of reaffirmed the signal at least. >> and this is what half of me, he gotten to so much trouble with his idiotic self deport, that he reexplain it in detail in that second debate and said what i meant was we want to make it so hard for you to live here and do everything to make your life hard so you will choose to go home. i thought he shoot have just avoided that in dunmore pivoting on immigration and he didn't. it was so hard because of all the primary stuff. >> we have a quick question and
7:57 pm
then we will wrap up. >> thank you. what impact do you think the election will have on what has amounted to the moderate republican and moderate democrat? jim jefferies, etc.. >> it's interesting cub they continued hollowing out of the senate and congress, especially as you see the split ticket voting in many states where it's -- [inaudible] what is the trendline you see for a more centrist legislature? >> not particularly good, particularly in the house because the whole trend gets reinforced by redistricting but even in the senate today the greatest threat to a democratic senator in most states is a run
7:58 pm
from the left in the primary and the biggest threat to many republican senators is a run from the right in the primary so that has an incentive for you to keep tacking left left if fewer than than tacking right if you are a republican. there again it will take a leader who is willing to bridge those differences and the president is the only one. >> let's be clear, this is not a symmetric rovlin. this is an asymmetric problem. it's a republican problem. if you want to look at where the moderate, look what happened in the u.s. senate across the country yesterday. how is it in these very republican state, montana, north dakota indiana, we are running big votes for romney they were supporting tickets and voting for what would he described as moderate. the democratic party as you know, look at democrats. one third self identifies as liberal and two-thirds identifies moderate conservative. we have a diverse party and in
7:59 pm
the state-wide races, the same thing exists when you deal with the house but on the democratic side it has been driving toward diversity, ideological diversity in the opposite is drawn the republican side. >> we have got to finish. it was striking yesterday that all the candidates achieved crossover support were in indiana, south dakota and minnesota. you look at ohio massachusetts connecticut or wisconsin, there was 90% plus correlation in the boat between president and senate in each of those cases. 90% of the obama voters voted democratic. there were democrats who were where they needed to. >> the blue dog democrats in the house are gone and this house democratic caucus is going to be far more liberal than the last house.

Public Affairs
CSPAN November 9, 2012 7:00pm-8:00pm EST

News News/Business.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 5, Romney 5, Ronald Reagan 5, America 4, Florida 3, Ben 3, Clinton 2, Walter Reid 2, Latino 2, Marco Rubio 2, Europe 2, Aei 2, George Bush 2, Stan 2, United States 2, Barack Obama 2, Mr. Barone 1, Georgia 1, Tehran 1, Iowa 1
Network CSPAN
Duration 01:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 91 (627 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 11/10/2012